2 22-0377 Subject: Ordinance To Modify The CPI Rent Adjustment
From: Councilmember Fife
Recommendation: Adopt An Ordinance Amending Chapter 8.22 Of The Oakland Municipal Code (Residential Rent Adjustments And Evictions) To (1) Make The Annual Permissible Rent Increase For Covered Units 60% Of The Percentage Increase In The Consumer Price Index Or 3%, Whichever Is Lower And (2) Align Annual Adjustment Period With State Law
This is absurd. Looks like equity and inclusion means taking from our longtime residents and giving it to the woke agenda. I hope you realize policies like this are what is destroying Oakland. Pretty soon no one will want to own property or do business in Oakland. How about an equity study on this item? I imagine you already know it will not come back supporting this item so I am guessing that is why you are skipping that part. I hope this ends up in court and city council members are personally sued for the taking of someones property.
I am a local housing provider in your city, and I urge you to vote NO on changing the formula to the Oakland Residential Rent Adjustments.
Enough is enough.
Your policies have consistently attacked our livelihood for years.
It is offensive that the city would consider further limiting our ability to recoup expenses for our housing services after two years of forcing us to provide housing for little-to-no compensation under the draconian eviction moratorium.
This proposal is further evidence that this city does not value its housing providers. Please consider the barrage of regulations we have endured and reject Councilmember Fife’s proposal.
I am a local housing provider in your city, and I urge you to vote NO on changing the formula to the Oakland Residential Rent Adjustments.
Enough is enough.
Your policies have consistently attacked our livelihood for years.
It is offensive that the city would consider further limiting our ability to recoup expenses for our housing services after two years of forcing us to provide housing for little-to-no compensation under the draconian eviction moratorium.
This proposal is further evidence that this city does not value its housing providers. Please consider the barrage of regulations we have endured and reject Councilmember Fife’s proposal.
I am a local housing provider in your city, and I urge you to vote NO on changing the formula to the Oakland Residential Rent Adjustments.
Enough is enough. “Hey landlords, keep your prices down — but by the way, your property tax just went up by 10%, your insurance costs have tripled, your utility costs have gone up 8%, your tenants haven’t paid rent for 2 years, maintenance and material costs? those went up 12% too but you’re a big bad landlord and can absorb the costs and we will continue to allow the non paying tenants of our city to get off scot free.”
Your policies have consistently attacked our livelihood for years.
It is offensive that the city would consider further limiting our ability to recoup expenses for our housing services after two years of forcing us to provide housing for little-to-no compensation under the draconian eviction moratorium.
This proposal is further evidence that this city does not value its housing providers.
By the way, a 6.3% pay increase was unanimously approved in March of 2022 by the city of Oakland’s Public Ethics Commission. It is based on the Consumer Price Index in the region over the past two years. The raise will increase Oakland council members' annual salary from $97,480.55 to $103,621.82. Interesting… should we cut your salary increase in half too?!?
Please consider the barrage of regulations we have endured and reject Councilmember Fife’s proposal
I’m a Latina immigrant educator and homeowner in Oakland. I also support my mom with her rent (she is an educator and a tenant in Oakland as well).
The 6.7% allowable increase is the highest ever since the rent program began and represents a 250% increase from last year's rate, translating to an extra $1,600 in rent owed this year for the average Oakland rental. This is an outrageous rent hike on tenants already struggling with the economic and personal toll of the pandemic, the end of most emergency rental assistance, and extreme inflation.
Oakland's rents are already out of control, and this unprecedented annual increase is a recipe for eviction that will force more people to go unhoused in our city. What's worse, this annual spike would have a cascading impact on Oakland renters for years to come as future increases would build on the much higher base rent that would result from this huge increase for many tenants.
Please stop this 6.7% increase now and allow our communities of renters, to be able to remain housed.
Passing on the full CPI increase to tenants is regressive, and will hit the most vulnerable households hardest when they are already paying higher costs for essentials like food, health care, and gas, and when salaries have not gone up 6.7% or at all.
Our rent control program has no income requirements for tenants or housing providers. Higher income tenants and rich providers get the greatest benefit. Presumably, the proposed changes are intended to help those of greatest need, but the program impacts stakeholders differently depending upon their economic situations. Proposed reductions in rental income do the greatest harm to lower earning racial minorities and working-class providers who have the lowest rents, oldest and costliest properties to maintain. To consider such a sweeping change, you must conduct a Race and Equity study. I urge you to vote against the proposal.
The City of Oakland RAP conducted a Covid housing impact survey of landlords and tenants (pub. Nov 2020) which highlights differing impacts on racial groups. When asked about difficulty to pay mortgage, only one-third of White property owners reported difficulties, while two-thirds of Asian/Pacific Islanders report difficulty. When asked about Covid impact on provider maintenance, very few White property owners reported cuts but over one-third of Black property owners reported having deferred maintenance.
This is how working-class and minority families lose generational wealth. It starts with deferred maintenance. Then legitimate tenant complaints, RAP hearing and unpaid rent. Late on mortgage and credit scores go down. Roof leaks and can’t borrow money due to bad credit. End up selling cheap to wealthier buyers in a process you call gentrification.
I am a recent small property owner and resident of a multifamily home in Oakland and I oppose this measure. Many homes in Oakland are older multifamily buildings and the ability to rent out the additional units is both a better use of the city's land, encouraging density and shared resources such as yards, but also puts homeownership within reach of a broader set of residents. I want to provide well maintained housing to my tenants, who are also my neighbors. Instead of implementing a short-sighted fixed rent increase cap during a year of high inflation which affects everyone, Oakland should provide more flexibility to owners to bank unused rental increases over multiple years. It is stressful to deal with rising costs, to want to do the right thing, but also to know that if I do not put in effect an increase this year I may not be able to do it if needed in the future. Oakland is one of the only places in California that still has a blanket eviction moratorium because of COVID, despite most other COVID policies having been lifted. The fact that landlords cannot evict a tenant who is in violation of their lease right now means that landlords have to be even more strict and paranoid about income requirements and reference checks fo r tenants as there may be no recourse for a bad situation once someone has moved in. Please consider more forward thinking alternatives. The only solution to displacement is more housing!
Please vote NO on this measure. Don’t take such a short sighted approach and realize u will create more blight in the city while doing nothing meaningful to adjust the root cause of housing problems in the Bay Area
I support capping the rental increase to 3%. This rental increase is ridiculous; wages in Oakland have not jumped nearly 7%, and plenty of people have not caught up to their pre-pandemic economic situation. This will simply lead to further gentrification and families being forced out onto the streets.
Making a sweeping permanent change to the rent control ordinance in response to a single year of high inflation is short-sighted at best. If the council wants to limit this year's increase and split it into multiple years, then so be it. But property owners large and small have been saddled with skyrocketing costs. Insurance costs are up 25-40% the last 2-3 years, utilities grow 5% per year and the costs of skilled labor needed to maintain safe, habitable and sanitary housing for our residents has gone through the roof. It is insane that property owners want and need to provide adequate housing, but are being forced to bear the entirety of increased costs without very reasonable CPI increases in rents.
This will have a catastrophic effect in some parts of the city as landlords who are financially squeezed will be unable to adequately pay for much needed repairs and maintenance on older buildings.
Please don't make a permanent decision based on a short-term problem. There are better, more precise ways to manage this issue.
I support the bill that prevents any more than 3 o/o of inflation rate annual rent increase. I am a landlord of 1 unit and want to allow my tenant to pay without stress
I am a housing provider in Oakland. Pandemic has been hard on me as more than 60% of my tenants have vacated the area. My rents are down 10% pre-pandemic. Even if city council allows a 6.9% increase, I will not be passing that on to my tenants as my conscience would not allow me to, and the current rental environment would not allow me even if I wanted to. However, I do not want to be subject to a rule that will make it nearly impossible to earn an acceptable return on my investment in the future.
This proposal is misguided. CPI understates the cost of providing housing. I replaced my foundation 2 years ago at a cost of $20,000 which would be $40,000 today. My utilities have practically doubled over the past year. My contractor routinely increase his rates 10% every year. Wages have increased. Social Security recipients got a 5.9% increase in January and will probably get higher increase next January. I spend half my rental income on repairs and upkeep which I have not passed on to my tenants.. If a landlord does nothing, he is called a slumlord and subject to lawsuits. Why are landlords burdened by inflation and the costs of housing while tenants are not?
Passage of this ordinance will lead to Oakland landlords leaving the market. The housing stock will become even more dilapidated as there will be no incentive to provide quality affordable housing. Developers will be reluctant to build in Oakland, and will exacerbate the lack of affordable housing.
As a low-income retiree who depends on my owner-occupied triplex rents to stay afloat, I have been hammered by the COVID-era price jumps for lumber, steel, & other raw materials needed for essential repairs. This year's rate of inflation is a once-in-four-decades event. The impacts of war in Ukraine could well tip us into global recession, next year. Renters & housing providers alike are all being pummelled by these economic shifts.
Make no mistake, councilmembers: putting a "forever" cap on CPI rent increases would be an unjustified windfall for well-off renters (as tech, etc incomes keep on climbing - & thus increasing the state's surplus!). In contrast, renters in financial distress also need help with utilities, health care & food, don't they? Changing the CPI formula for rent increases does nothing to "solve" all those problems; it only starves mom & pop (& other) landlords of rent adjustments that fully ebb and flow with the consumer price changes that affect all Oaklanders.
Finally, if the current system's the result of a 2002 lawsuit settlement,
does Council intend to reopen that?
I am a local housing provider in your city, and I urge you to vote NO on changing the formula to the Oakland Residential Rent Adjustments.
Enough is enough.
Your policies have consistently attacked our livelihood for years.
It is offensive that the city would consider further limiting our ability to recoup expenses for our housing services after two years of forcing us to provide housing for little-to-no compensation under the draconian eviction moratorium.
This proposal is further evidence that this city does not value its housing providers. Please consider the barrage of regulations we have endured and reject Councilmember Fife’s proposal.
As a small landlord of a property at Oakland, I totally against this proposal. I have trusted the market and the city government do their own jobs to accommodate both sides of the renter and landlords to maintain a good balance between them. It’s truly not wise for city council to step in to disturb the balance arbitrarily. The housing eco system in Oakland will be negatively impacted by the city council’s policy to favor one side vs the other. Just let the market does the work and balance out both sides. Otherwise you city council will be blamed later for crashing housing value and reduced property tax income if you decide to further discourage landlords of Oakland!!! Thanks for your understanding.
I am a local housing provider in your city, and I urge you to vote NO on changing the formula to the Oakland Residential Rent Adjustments.
I’ve rented my unit out for nearly forty years. Because I value the longevity of my tenants, I’ve rented my unit out at below market rates to keep tenancy constant and stable. I’ve kept rent increases to a minimum, with reasonable rental increases. I’ve been responsible.
This year has been particularly difficult. I am retired and depend on rental income for supplemental income. I have no intention of raising rent beyond that which is reasonable. I don’t need your guidance on this matter.
This proposal is further evidence that this city does not value its housing providers, nor understand how responsible landlords operate. Please consider the barrage of regulations we have endured and reject Councilmember Fife’s proposal.
Thank you,
Paul Levine
I am a local housing provider in your city, and I urge you to vote NO on changing the formula to the Oakland Residential Rent Adjustments.
It seems that the council ignores the higher operating expenses housing providers incurred (utilities, maintenance, and insurance cost all increased more than 20% over last two years), while at same time, reduce our monthly income and ability to break even. Inflation is a huge burden for landlord's operating cost. In fact, Oakland landlords have been subsidizing tenants over last two years with very low rent increase (1.9% and 2.7%) while inflation is running at 8-10% a year. This proposal is further evidence that this city does not value its housing providers. Please consider the barrage of regulations we have endured and reject Councilmember Fife’s proposal.
This proposal is a downright theft. Thieves belong in jail, not in City Council.
How dare you do it to the house providers after you made them bear the hugely unproportional burden of the pandemic with the local eviction moratorium going far beyond the national and the state moratorium. And at the same time you did not forget to raise your own compensation to the full degree of the CPI increase. Disgusting.
This is absurd. Looks like equity and inclusion means taking from our longtime residents and giving it to the woke agenda. I hope you realize policies like this are what is destroying Oakland. Pretty soon no one will want to own property or do business in Oakland. How about an equity study on this item? I imagine you already know it will not come back supporting this item so I am guessing that is why you are skipping that part. I hope this ends up in court and city council members are personally sued for the taking of someones property.
Dear Oakland City Councilmember,
I am a local housing provider in your city, and I urge you to vote NO on changing the formula to the Oakland Residential Rent Adjustments.
Enough is enough.
Your policies have consistently attacked our livelihood for years.
It is offensive that the city would consider further limiting our ability to recoup expenses for our housing services after two years of forcing us to provide housing for little-to-no compensation under the draconian eviction moratorium.
This proposal is further evidence that this city does not value its housing providers. Please consider the barrage of regulations we have endured and reject Councilmember Fife’s proposal.
Dear Oakland City Councilmember,
I am a local housing provider in your city, and I urge you to vote NO on changing the formula to the Oakland Residential Rent Adjustments.
Enough is enough.
Your policies have consistently attacked our livelihood for years.
It is offensive that the city would consider further limiting our ability to recoup expenses for our housing services after two years of forcing us to provide housing for little-to-no compensation under the draconian eviction moratorium.
This proposal is further evidence that this city does not value its housing providers. Please consider the barrage of regulations we have endured and reject Councilmember Fife’s proposal.
As a small landlord, I urge you to vote NO on this Ordinance. I don't need to repeat all the no reason that are already posted.
Dear Oakland City Councilmember,
I am a local housing provider in your city, and I urge you to vote NO on changing the formula to the Oakland Residential Rent Adjustments.
Enough is enough. “Hey landlords, keep your prices down — but by the way, your property tax just went up by 10%, your insurance costs have tripled, your utility costs have gone up 8%, your tenants haven’t paid rent for 2 years, maintenance and material costs? those went up 12% too but you’re a big bad landlord and can absorb the costs and we will continue to allow the non paying tenants of our city to get off scot free.”
Your policies have consistently attacked our livelihood for years.
It is offensive that the city would consider further limiting our ability to recoup expenses for our housing services after two years of forcing us to provide housing for little-to-no compensation under the draconian eviction moratorium.
This proposal is further evidence that this city does not value its housing providers.
By the way, a 6.3% pay increase was unanimously approved in March of 2022 by the city of Oakland’s Public Ethics Commission. It is based on the Consumer Price Index in the region over the past two years. The raise will increase Oakland council members' annual salary from $97,480.55 to $103,621.82. Interesting… should we cut your salary increase in half too?!?
Please consider the barrage of regulations we have endured and reject Councilmember Fife’s proposal
I’m a Latina immigrant educator and homeowner in Oakland. I also support my mom with her rent (she is an educator and a tenant in Oakland as well).
The 6.7% allowable increase is the highest ever since the rent program began and represents a 250% increase from last year's rate, translating to an extra $1,600 in rent owed this year for the average Oakland rental. This is an outrageous rent hike on tenants already struggling with the economic and personal toll of the pandemic, the end of most emergency rental assistance, and extreme inflation.
Oakland's rents are already out of control, and this unprecedented annual increase is a recipe for eviction that will force more people to go unhoused in our city. What's worse, this annual spike would have a cascading impact on Oakland renters for years to come as future increases would build on the much higher base rent that would result from this huge increase for many tenants.
Please stop this 6.7% increase now and allow our communities of renters, to be able to remain housed.
Passing on the full CPI increase to tenants is regressive, and will hit the most vulnerable households hardest when they are already paying higher costs for essentials like food, health care, and gas, and when salaries have not gone up 6.7% or at all.
Thank you!
This proposal will reduce tax revenue for the city of Oakland if it is allowed to pass. I urge a no vote.
Our rent control program has no income requirements for tenants or housing providers. Higher income tenants and rich providers get the greatest benefit. Presumably, the proposed changes are intended to help those of greatest need, but the program impacts stakeholders differently depending upon their economic situations. Proposed reductions in rental income do the greatest harm to lower earning racial minorities and working-class providers who have the lowest rents, oldest and costliest properties to maintain. To consider such a sweeping change, you must conduct a Race and Equity study. I urge you to vote against the proposal.
The City of Oakland RAP conducted a Covid housing impact survey of landlords and tenants (pub. Nov 2020) which highlights differing impacts on racial groups. When asked about difficulty to pay mortgage, only one-third of White property owners reported difficulties, while two-thirds of Asian/Pacific Islanders report difficulty. When asked about Covid impact on provider maintenance, very few White property owners reported cuts but over one-third of Black property owners reported having deferred maintenance.
This is how working-class and minority families lose generational wealth. It starts with deferred maintenance. Then legitimate tenant complaints, RAP hearing and unpaid rent. Late on mortgage and credit scores go down. Roof leaks and can’t borrow money due to bad credit. End up selling cheap to wealthier buyers in a process you call gentrification.
I am a recent small property owner and resident of a multifamily home in Oakland and I oppose this measure. Many homes in Oakland are older multifamily buildings and the ability to rent out the additional units is both a better use of the city's land, encouraging density and shared resources such as yards, but also puts homeownership within reach of a broader set of residents. I want to provide well maintained housing to my tenants, who are also my neighbors. Instead of implementing a short-sighted fixed rent increase cap during a year of high inflation which affects everyone, Oakland should provide more flexibility to owners to bank unused rental increases over multiple years. It is stressful to deal with rising costs, to want to do the right thing, but also to know that if I do not put in effect an increase this year I may not be able to do it if needed in the future. Oakland is one of the only places in California that still has a blanket eviction moratorium because of COVID, despite most other COVID policies having been lifted. The fact that landlords cannot evict a tenant who is in violation of their lease right now means that landlords have to be even more strict and paranoid about income requirements and reference checks fo r tenants as there may be no recourse for a bad situation once someone has moved in. Please consider more forward thinking alternatives. The only solution to displacement is more housing!
Please vote NO on this measure. Don’t take such a short sighted approach and realize u will create more blight in the city while doing nothing meaningful to adjust the root cause of housing problems in the Bay Area
I support capping the rental increase to 3%. This rental increase is ridiculous; wages in Oakland have not jumped nearly 7%, and plenty of people have not caught up to their pre-pandemic economic situation. This will simply lead to further gentrification and families being forced out onto the streets.
Making a sweeping permanent change to the rent control ordinance in response to a single year of high inflation is short-sighted at best. If the council wants to limit this year's increase and split it into multiple years, then so be it. But property owners large and small have been saddled with skyrocketing costs. Insurance costs are up 25-40% the last 2-3 years, utilities grow 5% per year and the costs of skilled labor needed to maintain safe, habitable and sanitary housing for our residents has gone through the roof. It is insane that property owners want and need to provide adequate housing, but are being forced to bear the entirety of increased costs without very reasonable CPI increases in rents.
This will have a catastrophic effect in some parts of the city as landlords who are financially squeezed will be unable to adequately pay for much needed repairs and maintenance on older buildings.
Please don't make a permanent decision based on a short-term problem. There are better, more precise ways to manage this issue.
I support the bill that prevents any more than 3 o/o of inflation rate annual rent increase. I am a landlord of 1 unit and want to allow my tenant to pay without stress
I am a housing provider in Oakland. Pandemic has been hard on me as more than 60% of my tenants have vacated the area. My rents are down 10% pre-pandemic. Even if city council allows a 6.9% increase, I will not be passing that on to my tenants as my conscience would not allow me to, and the current rental environment would not allow me even if I wanted to. However, I do not want to be subject to a rule that will make it nearly impossible to earn an acceptable return on my investment in the future.
This proposal is misguided. CPI understates the cost of providing housing. I replaced my foundation 2 years ago at a cost of $20,000 which would be $40,000 today. My utilities have practically doubled over the past year. My contractor routinely increase his rates 10% every year. Wages have increased. Social Security recipients got a 5.9% increase in January and will probably get higher increase next January. I spend half my rental income on repairs and upkeep which I have not passed on to my tenants.. If a landlord does nothing, he is called a slumlord and subject to lawsuits. Why are landlords burdened by inflation and the costs of housing while tenants are not?
Passage of this ordinance will lead to Oakland landlords leaving the market. The housing stock will become even more dilapidated as there will be no incentive to provide quality affordable housing. Developers will be reluctant to build in Oakland, and will exacerbate the lack of affordable housing.
As a low-income retiree who depends on my owner-occupied triplex rents to stay afloat, I have been hammered by the COVID-era price jumps for lumber, steel, & other raw materials needed for essential repairs. This year's rate of inflation is a once-in-four-decades event. The impacts of war in Ukraine could well tip us into global recession, next year. Renters & housing providers alike are all being pummelled by these economic shifts.
Make no mistake, councilmembers: putting a "forever" cap on CPI rent increases would be an unjustified windfall for well-off renters (as tech, etc incomes keep on climbing - & thus increasing the state's surplus!). In contrast, renters in financial distress also need help with utilities, health care & food, don't they? Changing the CPI formula for rent increases does nothing to "solve" all those problems; it only starves mom & pop (& other) landlords of rent adjustments that fully ebb and flow with the consumer price changes that affect all Oaklanders.
Finally, if the current system's the result of a 2002 lawsuit settlement,
does Council intend to reopen that?
Thank you.
Dear Oakland City Councilmember,
I am a local housing provider in your city, and I urge you to vote NO on changing the formula to the Oakland Residential Rent Adjustments.
Enough is enough.
Your policies have consistently attacked our livelihood for years.
It is offensive that the city would consider further limiting our ability to recoup expenses for our housing services after two years of forcing us to provide housing for little-to-no compensation under the draconian eviction moratorium.
This proposal is further evidence that this city does not value its housing providers. Please consider the barrage of regulations we have endured and reject Councilmember Fife’s proposal.
As a small landlord of a property at Oakland, I totally against this proposal. I have trusted the market and the city government do their own jobs to accommodate both sides of the renter and landlords to maintain a good balance between them. It’s truly not wise for city council to step in to disturb the balance arbitrarily. The housing eco system in Oakland will be negatively impacted by the city council’s policy to favor one side vs the other. Just let the market does the work and balance out both sides. Otherwise you city council will be blamed later for crashing housing value and reduced property tax income if you decide to further discourage landlords of Oakland!!! Thanks for your understanding.
Dear Oakland City Councilmember,
I am a local housing provider in your city, and I urge you to vote NO on changing the formula to the Oakland Residential Rent Adjustments.
I’ve rented my unit out for nearly forty years. Because I value the longevity of my tenants, I’ve rented my unit out at below market rates to keep tenancy constant and stable. I’ve kept rent increases to a minimum, with reasonable rental increases. I’ve been responsible.
This year has been particularly difficult. I am retired and depend on rental income for supplemental income. I have no intention of raising rent beyond that which is reasonable. I don’t need your guidance on this matter.
This proposal is further evidence that this city does not value its housing providers, nor understand how responsible landlords operate. Please consider the barrage of regulations we have endured and reject Councilmember Fife’s proposal.
Thank you,
Paul Levine
Dear Oakland City Councilmember,
I am a local housing provider in your city, and I urge you to vote NO on changing the formula to the Oakland Residential Rent Adjustments.
It seems that the council ignores the higher operating expenses housing providers incurred (utilities, maintenance, and insurance cost all increased more than 20% over last two years), while at same time, reduce our monthly income and ability to break even. Inflation is a huge burden for landlord's operating cost. In fact, Oakland landlords have been subsidizing tenants over last two years with very low rent increase (1.9% and 2.7%) while inflation is running at 8-10% a year. This proposal is further evidence that this city does not value its housing providers. Please consider the barrage of regulations we have endured and reject Councilmember Fife’s proposal.
This proposal is a downright theft. Thieves belong in jail, not in City Council.
How dare you do it to the house providers after you made them bear the hugely unproportional burden of the pandemic with the local eviction moratorium going far beyond the national and the state moratorium. And at the same time you did not forget to raise your own compensation to the full degree of the CPI increase. Disgusting.